Embakasi Jua Kali Housing Association (Suing through James Billy O Anunda -Charman, Meshack O Magati - Secretary & John Muya - Treasurer) v Embakasi Developers Ltd & 5 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1002 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3542 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land court threw out an attempt to stop plot sales and jail board members, finding the request was a repeat of a case already decided and no court order was actually breached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has met the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the suit properties pending outcome of this suit
- 2.Whether the Respondents are in contempt of this court's orders issued on 26th September 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for an interlocutory injunction was met
Not met; the application was res judicata and an abuse of process, and no prima facie case was established because the Plaintiff's members are not the registered proprietors
The court noted the Plaintiff had earlier sought injunctive orders over the same properties in an application dated 8th October 2015, dismissed on merit by Lady Justice L. Gacheru in her Ruling of 10th March 2017. Filing a fresh application for similar orders offended section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, and since the members are not registered proprietors, no prima facie case with a proprietary right capable of protection was established.
Whether the Respondents were in contempt of the Ruling of 26th September 2024
No contempt established; the Ruling contained no order barring advertisement or sale, so no order was breached
The court set out the elements of civil contempt (North Tetu Farmers) and the elevated standard of proof (Mutitika v Baharini Farm). The dismissal of the 1st Defendant's application for a compromise declaration did not itself prohibit advertising or sale. The Plaintiff could not identify any portion of the Ruling that was contravened, so the elements of a clear order and deliberate breach were not proved.
Legal principles established
#- A fresh application seeking injunctive orders already determined on merit is res judicata and an abuse of the court process
- Civil contempt requires proof of a clear and unambiguous order, knowledge of it, breach of it, and deliberate conduct, to a standard higher than balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated the 11th November 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded against the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act (original jurisdiction over the suit; contempt under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from interfering with the suit properties
An earlier application seeking similar injunctive orders had been determined on merit (dismissed by L. Gacheru J on 10th March 2017), rendering the fresh application res judicata and an abuse of process; the Plaintiff's members are not registered proprietors and no prima facie case was established
Declaration that the Respondents disobeyed the order of 26th September 2024 and committal of the Respondents' Board members to civil jail / fines
The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate which portion of the Ruling of 26th September 2024 was contravened; the Ruling did not bar the Respondents from advertising or selling the plots
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs (to the Defendants/Respondents).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is against the foregoing that I find the Plaintifi's Notice of Motion application dated the 11th November 2024 unmerited and will dismiss it with costs.
In my view since an earlier application seeking orders of injunction had been determined on merit, the instant application amounts to an abuse of the court process
there was no indication in the impugned Ruling, that the Respondents/Defendants were barred from advertising or selling the plots emanating from the suit properties
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Embakasi Jua Kali Housing Association (Suing through James Billy O Anunda -Charman, Meshack O Magati - Secretary & John Muya - Treasurer) v Embakasi Developers Ltd & 5 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1002 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3542 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated (associated suits: HCCC No. 116 of 2000; HCCC No. 299 of 1999; ELC Civil Suit No. 456 of 2010 (O.S)). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3542/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.